Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject: Opponents Points Per 100 Possessions = definitive team stat
I am convinced. Living in a defensive era, there is no stat more important. Since people don't talk a lot about team statistics here, I thought I'd bring up my favorite. Using basketball-reference.com, here are the rankings of every team that has made an NBA finals since 1989 in opponents points per 100 possessions:
2005 San Antonio Spurs (1st) over Detroit Pistons (3rd)
2004 Detroit Pistosn (2nd) over Los Angeles Lakers (8th)
2003 San Antonio Spurs (3rd) over New Jersey Nets (1st)
2002 Los Angeles Lakers (7th)* over New Jersey Nets (2nd)
2001 Los Angeles Lakers (19th)* over Philadelphia 76ers (5th)
2000 Los Angeles Lakers (1st) over Indiana Pacers (13th)
1999 San Antonio Spurs (1st) over New York Knicks (3rd)
1998 Chicago Bulls (3rd)* over Utah Jazz (15th)
1997 Chicago Bulls (4th)* over Utah Jazz (11th)
1996 Chicago Bulls (1st) over Seattle Sonics (2nd)
1995 Houston Rockets (12th)* over Orlando Magic (13th)
1994 Houston Rockets (4th) over New York Knicks (1st)
1993 Chicago Bulls (3rd)* over Phoenix Suns (9th)
1992 Chicago Bulls (4th)* over Portland Trailblazers (1st)
1991 Chicago Bulls (6th) over Los Angeles Lakers (4th)
1990 Detroit Pistons (1st)* over Portland Trailblazers (3rd)
1989 Detroit Pistons (3rd) over Los Angeles Lakers (7th)
* an asterisks for repeat winners
Note that repeat champions often are low. Why this is, is anyone's guess. Maybe the correlation means nothing, maybe it does. Maybe repeat winners, like Shaq used to say, take the regualr season off. I don't know. Just thought i'd throw out this wonderful stat for discussion.
Last edited by mateo82 on Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:54 pm Post subject: I agree
I agree it is a very important stat. 22 of the 34 finalists in 17 years had a top5 defense on this measure or 65% of all finalists, and 82% were top 10. The average rank was just about 5th.
Last edited by jambalaya on Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
"Except repeats" is an important caveat. The only case with a defense below the median for all teams that year was the defending Lakers who picked it up as Shaq said and repeated in 2001.
It would be interesting to see the data on playoff defensive performance on this measure and see how it matches up. That would seem a more valuable measure since the regular season is different and ultimately not as important.
On the regular season data, the winners averaged 4.7th ranked and the losers 5.5th ranked. The better ranked team won 10 of 17 of the match ups, nice but not a large margin, so it may say more about getting there than winning the championship series. I suspect the team with the higher offense - defense point differential per 100 possession would be the winner more often and you can rank higher on that several ways.
Last edited by jambalaya on Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:29 pm; edited 3 times in total
It is, but because all repeat winners had a lower ranking than their first year (without exception), maybe this means that the correlation is not only coincidence. but maybe it is.
Quote:
It would be interesting to see the data on playoff defensive performance on this measure and see how it matches up. That would seem a more valuable measure since the regular season is different and ultimately not as important.
I would love to see this as well. I also wonder if this stat is compiled at the end of seasons or as the season goes on. It seems like it would be meticulous to do it myself.
Quote:
On the regular season data, the winners averaged 4.7th ranked and the losers 5.5th ranked. The better ranked team won 10 of 17 of the match ups, nice but not a large margin, so it may say more about getting there than winning the championship series. I suspect the team with offense - defense point differential per 100 possession would be the winner more often and you can rank high on that several ways.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Just getting there isn't necessarily enough. If you get without a very elite defensive team then you stand no chance, good offense or not.
I checked the median, thinking the very bad 2001 lakers might have dragged down the winners down in mean but the median is 3 for both.
As a side issue, when compiling this, I was shocked by how overwhelmingly dominant the 1994 Knicks were on defense. 97.6, which is ridiculously good. Almost 4 points better than the Rockets. And, if I recall correctly, no one else was even close in the years I covered. I think 2003 Nets were something like 98.2... but that's the closest it ever came (except 1999, when about 10 teams were as good or better.... so i'm rejecting that year altogether, that just doesn't make sense).
It kind of reinforces the idea that NY choked hard that year.
A look at basketball reference's playoffs index suggests you could manually compute team offensive performance from that but not defense. Perhaps it could be enhanced to allow easier calculations. You probably could assemble from espn.com or nba.com playoff data but maybe not all the way back. You could get three years from 82games.com and just one from dougsstats.
I agree being top5 defense is very very important, top 10 close to an absolute requirement to win a championship (or have a Shaq or Oluwajon in take care of the paint in the clutch). But still you can be a lot of different good combinations of top 5-10 defense and top 5-10 offenses and get it done. And your offense might be somewhat better than your defense (you don't have to be defensive-biased, netting the two measures). But it is true that in 13 of 17 most recent cases the winner was top5.
If I was planning on a championship, I'd plan on being top 5 on defense if at all possible, using every means available. Phoenix's off season moves and the players/coaches greater efforts could move them up from 16th on defensive efficency at http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/d_de.htm
to perhaps top 10 but can they move into top5? I'd be somewhat surprised. Both Brian Grant and Kurt thomas give up more than 50% FG to opposing centers. And no meaningful improvement on that over Amare and the departed Hunter at that spot. And Raja Bell was actually a little worse than the departed Q Richardson and Joe Johnson. So I guess it better get done on chemistry and greater effort because I am not sure they really upgraded defensive talent that much- at least by this one measure, which admittedly isnt sufficient by itself to answer the whole defensive question- even if they upgraded defensive "reputation".
Here are the stats of a team's own points per 100 possessions so we can compare to their opponents:
2005 San Antonio Spurs (8th) over Detroit Pistons (16th)
2004 Detroit Pistons (18th) over Los Angeles Lakers (6th)
2003 San Antonio Spurs (6th) over New Jersey Nets (19th)
2002 Los Angeles Lakers (3rd)* over New Jersey Nets (16th)
2001 Los Angeles Lakers (2nd)* over Philadelphia 76ers (13th)
2000 Los Angeles Lakers (6th) over Indiana Pacers (1st)
1999 San Antonio Spurs (10th) over New York Knicks (26th)
1998 Chicago Bulls (9th)* over Utah Jazz (1st)
1997 Chicago Bulls (1st)* over Utah Jazz (2nd)
1996 Chicago Bulls (1st) over Seattle Supersonics (6th)
1995 Houston Rockets (8th)* over Orlando Magic (2nd)
1994 Houston Rockets (16th) over New York Knicks (14th)
1993 Chicago Bulls (3rd)* over Phoenix Suns (1st)
1992 Chicago Bulls (1st)* over Portland Trailblazers (7th)
1991 Chicago Bulls (1st) over Los Angeles Lakers (5th)
1990 Detroit Pistons (11th)* over Portland Trailblazers (8th)
1989 Detroit Pistons (8th) over Los Angeles Lakers (1st)
* an asterisks for repeat winners
Winners are average of 6.5 and losers are 8.5
Obviously defense is much more important. Aside from the averages: just look at a few examples. The 2004 Lakers, for example, who were quite balanced. 8th in defense, 6th in offense. So if being a top10 in both categories is the strategy... it doesn't always work. The Pistons were a miserable 18th in offense but 2nd in defense.
I think focusing on that top 3 or 4 defense is the way to go.
Even among teams that were top 5 in defense and top 10 in offense, there are quite a few examples of losers that fit that description: Sonics, 92 Blazers, 91 Lakers, 90 Blazers all were top 5 defensive and top 10 offense and lost. That's how unimportant "balance" seems to be. Dominant defense is what works.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject: Reply
Top 5 offense, top 10 defense isnt always enough, I agree.
But balance does still matter. In 12 of the 17 cases the most balanced team, computed as absolute value of rank on defense - rank on offense, won the championship match up (with one tie):
It is noteworthy that both are indeed defensively biased, in line with your argument that defense is more important (and I agree with that to a point, but add the data about balance instead of rejecting it),
but the winner, on average was less defensively biased than the loser, slightly [/u]
and "balance" is a slightly better predictor of the winner year to year (12 of 17) compared to defensive ranking alone (10 of 17 called correctly).
In 2002 the lakers were #3 O / #7 D and won the championship, so a top5 offense, top ten but not top 5 defense can win. And in another case it also happened 1991 Bulls #1 O / #6 D. In two other cases an offensively biased team also won 1997 bulls #1 0 / #4 D 1992 Bulls #1 / #4 D and came just short a little short of meeting this description. It is fairly rare, 2 cases and 2 close calls in 17 years, but these four examples help counterbalance the ones you selected were they failed.
Still it appears true that a top5 defense / top 10 offense is a better strategy with 8 winners (if you count one case where the offense was even worse the 94 Rockets). And I agree would seem the better strategy than the reverse.
Nonetheless, overall 7 of the 17 winners were "offensively biased" by this simple net rank measure. So good offense rank is usually also important. The amount of importance varies.
It can be outweighed sometimes by great D as with the Pistons. In three of the 4 cases where a team was 10 or higher on offense yet won the championship they had a #1 or #2 defense with the fourth case being #4.
But there are two cases of a team 10 or higher on defense still winning, in one case they were #2 on offense, in the other #8.
As for the top4 in defense model, such teams appeared 22 times, impressive. They won 13 times, also impressive. Certainly top5 defense is a great strategy, maybe the best.
But 8 times top4 defenses met each other, in 5 cases the lesser defense won (even in two cases where their offense was actually worse than the opponent), in 3 cases the better defense won. A small margin, but another piece of the record.
By comparison top 4 offenses appeared half as often, 11 times but won 7 times. Less often, but a slightly better winning percentage 64% to 59%, still on balance I'll stay with the top 4 defense over top 4 offense as a better strategy. A top 4 "balance" team also appeared 11 times and won 7 of them.
If I could acheive any of the three top 4 ranks I'd run with it. In fact the three different top 4 strategies account for 16 of the 17 examples.
There were five cases where defense and offense top4 status overlapped, and four of them were the strongest dynasty of the era Chicago Bulls and the other was the breakthru, start of the modern defensive era, 89 Pistons. There are no cases of a team with a top4 on offense and defense not winning the championship in this period though there are 4 cases of failure that are close, with a top5 -7 rank in one field while top4 in the other.
There are 5 cases where teams where top4 on offense and balance on won a championship and no examples of losses; but in four of the cases they were also top4 in defense to complete the trifecta (the only exception being the 2002 Lakers with a good but still #7 defense in a repeat situation so it was probably still better for the playoffs).
There are 6 cases on top4 in defense and balance that won the championship, but 2 cases where they failed to win a championship- the 96 Sonics, 91 Lakers, and two more other cases where they failed to win a championship with a top 4 in defense but with a top5-6 finish in balance.
I think it would be fairly safe to say your strategy ought to be on having at least one of the three top4 ranks. I dont think any lesser rank strategy on offense, defense or balance is likely to cut it very often. And it wouldnt hurt to try to have two or at least to improve your relatively weak area as much as you can so that it has less chance of being what keeps you from winning with your strength.
In one case a top 4 defense meet a top 4 balance team who was not also a top4 defense, the top 4 defense won - 2004 Pistons. In another case though, a top 3 balance team beat a top4 defense team - 1992 Bulls (But they did have a just outside the top4 standard, top 5 defense to add to their #1 offense and effective balance; while the Blazers had a top7offense to go with thier slightly superior #4 D . Both team good cases for balance working well.)
In three cases a top 4 defense team that was not also top4 on offense meet a top4 offense that was not also top4 on defense and the better defense won 2-1.
My overall point, besides trying to give a fair look to as many angles as I could think of, is that the record has enough diversity that it should be noted / considered along with "the defensive wins a lot" evidence. There is some flexibility in how defense, offense and balance play out and who wins. Defense seems to have the edge but by itself it can not claim all the credit or all the championships.
Last edited by jambalaya on Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:40 pm; edited 7 times in total
just to let you know, in my original post I had mistakenly listed the 1992 Suns as 1st in defense when it fact they were 9th. I editted in the correct value, but if that messed up any of your data you might consider that.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject: Reply
I think it was a good topic, good exchange, pretty full consideration of the data and alternate models. Maybe others will add views later.
The error might affect some of my statements by one case, but not others, and I probably won't go back thru and revise everything because most of the points will remain close to the same in meaning.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: Leading contenders for this coming year
Based on this concept that you need to be a top 4 offense, defense or balance team, I turned to last year's playoff data as a relevant (play at end of year / when it is really on the line, stats not influenced by performance against nonplayoff teams), not yet examined database to start a consideration of top contenders for this year (despite uneven playoff competition which diostorts). Changes to this year's roster to be briefly considered next.
2005 Playoff data
Team Scoring Team Defense
Team Pts/Game Team Pts/Game
1 PhoenixSuns 112.0 1 DetroitPistons 85.6
2 DallasMavericks 105.2 2 IndianaPacers 86.9
3 MemphisGrizzlies 102.8 3 BostonCeltics 88.3
4 ChicagoBulls 102.5 4 SanAntonioSpurs 92.6
Team Scoring Differential
Team Pts/Game
1 DetroitPistons 4.7
2 MiamiHeat 4.3
3 SanAntonioSpurs 4.3
4 PhoenixSuns 4.2
San Antonio, Detroit and Phoenix appear on two lists, a good starting point for being elite. San Antonio got better. Detroit probably hasnt aged or changed enough to slip, if Flip handles the challenge. Phoenix changed, maybe not better on talent, but more experienced with each other and being a contender so I think it safe to include them too.
The number 2's in each of the categories Dallas on offense, Indiana on defense and Miami on balance seem like good starters for at least being second tier elite if not equal to the first tier. Miami changed the most but probably a net improvement. Indiana got Artest and another guard. Dallas may have slipped a bit.
A third tier seems to include Chicago, Boston, Memphis who made appearances in the top4s. You could argue each slipped down, but with Chicago it is debatable and with more experience for the young guys offsetting they are most likely to still be competitive for the elite 8.
Seattle and Washington were elite 8 last year but not on these specific playoff measures. I'd put them third tier to start. Both had some changes, probably mild net losses.
Any teams likely to move up close enough to consider them as well? Denver, Houston, Sacramento, Cleveland, New Jersey.
Thats 16 teams mentioned. Using top 4 in something as the standard for weeding, I'd say it is San Antonio, Detroit and Phoenix for sure, probably Dallas, Indiana and Miami. I'd give Denver and Chicago as more likely final wildcards for top4 on defense or balance. Most or all of the top 4 next playoffs are likely to come from these elite 8. Washington and Houston seems like the next most likely bubble teams to me.
I won't try to pick the top4 or top 2 yet but by all-star game the odds of guessing right then will improve quite a bit.
First off, I kept meaning to get around to coming here, and I'm glad to finally get over. FWIW I posted on the APBR listserv under the pseudonym John Craven (okay, maybe that was more of a "nym"). Anyway...
The problem I have with a stat like this is that really to me basketball is composed of six basic components, not two:
- Scoring points efficiently (measured in terms of points divided by shot attempts, counting a free throw attempt as .4 of one per what everyone else is doing WRT possessions)
- Avoiding turnovers
- Grabbing offensive rebounds
- Grabbing defensive rebounds
- Forcing turnovers
- Forcing your opponent into inefficient shooting.
We're lumping the first 3 into offense and the last 3 into defense. I don't think that's right. It's kind of like baseball sabermetricians grouping pitching together with defense. Do rebounds feed off of good D? Sure, but defensive turnovers should also lead to a better scoring-efficiency rating and I don't see anybody trying to look at *that*.
Anyway, just for fun I'm going to list teams' ratings by each of these metrics, year by year, then come up with a horribly flawed statistic that attempts to quantify what "percentage" of the game is offense, defense, and so on. Anyway, here goes. Stats go team name (scoring-TOs-ORs / defensive scoring-TOs-DRs).
1989: Detroit (1-17-7/3-19-4) over LA Lakers (8-10-12/6-21-6)
1990: Detroit (13-8-5/1-15-4) over Portland (15-10-2/11-6-3)
1991: Chicago (4-3-4/14-4-9) over LA Lakers (8-6-15/1-23-13)
1992: Chicago (6-2-5/8-7-4) over Portland (8-12-4/10-5-2)
1993: Chicago (16-1-1/18-3-12) over Phoenix (1-18-10/10-14-6)
1994: Houston (5-20-27/1-22-5) over New York (13-22-8/2-2-1)
1995: Houston (4-19-26/4-20-19) over Orlando (3-7-3/5-24-15)
1996: Chicago (10-1-1/2-4-8 ) over Seattle (1-28-16/6-1-14)
1997: Chicago (9-1-2/1-15-12) over Utah (1-15-18/15-5-5)
1998: Chicago (19-4-2/2-13-7) over Utah (1-18-9/16-22-5)
1999: San Antonio (10-14-16/1-21-19) over New York (16-27-24/4-12-5)
2000: LA Lakers (14-3-5/1-23-5) over Indiana (1-7-28/7-27-15)
2001: LA Lakers (7-6-3/13-28-10) over Philadelphia (13-21-2/3-8-9)
2002: LA Lakers (7-2-16/2-22-8 ) over New Jersey (17-18-13/4-3-13)
2003: San Antonio (3-24-13/2-12-17) over New Jersey (18-19-14/3-3-6)
2004: Detroit (19-20-9/2-7-13) over LA Lakers (8-5-16/11-14-6)
2005: San Antonio (6-1-15/1-6-3) over Detroit (23-14-4/2-18-5)
STATHEADS PLEASE LOOK AWAY. THE FOLLOWING METRIC WILL MAKE YOU DRY HEAVE. There were, on average, just over 28 teams in the league per year. That means that any stat where the average is around 14th or lower doesn't really matter, as teams, on average, won their conference despite being in the middle of the pack. Theoretically, if teams were *lower* than 14th on average, that'd be a sign that that stat somehow detracted from a team's winning. Fortunately, that didn't happen. Here is how championship basketball breaks down in that "baseball is 50% pitching" way that doesn't really make a lot of sense but nonetheless is fun to talk about:
Offensive efficiency is 19.1% of the game.
Avoiding turnovers makes up 9.4%.
Offensive rebounds? Try 14.7% on for size.
Defensive efficiency makes up an amazing 32.1%.
Creating turnovers, strangely enough, only contributes 3.3%.
And defensive rebounds add up to 21.4%.
The old school definitions of O and D would have it at about 43% offense and 57% defense. However, I prefer to look at it as 28.5% offense, 35.5% defense, and 35% rebounding.
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:31 am Post subject: Interesting but please explain conversion method
How did you go from the 6 stat ranks to the % of the game stats? That is key to undestanding your model, so please explain step by step how you made this conversion. Thanks.
We've been using ranks in this thread because it is easy to look at but if some version of this method were to be used in the future I think it would be preferable to go back to basing the comparison in the actual values because on some stats teams are bunched closely in general, or in certain parts of the distribution more so than others, so rank doesnt give a fully accurate display of the underlining comparison of raw data.
If you go to a % of the game method, using raw data is easy, though you would have to explain why their "wining value" might vary up and down from their weights in commonly used balanced statistical weight systems. And you are well aware, given your long participaion at the old board, there would likely be some discussion or resistance to any specific winning value weights depending how good the analysis and reasoning was behind their assignment. But lets see it and see where it leads and what is learned along the way.
Last edited by jambalaya on Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
